Q&A: Legal Scholar on Historic SpaceX Launch

We may be at the dawn of a new, private era in space.

In the near future, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket will liftoff the launchpad, bringing the Dragon spacecraft to dock with the International Space Station. Until now, only the U.S., Russia, Japan, and the European Union have accomplished such a goal. If SpaceX succeeds, it will become the first private company to do so.

This week, Wired interviews experts in the spaceflight community to discuss the ways this historic launch will impact NASA and mankind’s presence in space. Is it a giant leap, or just a baby step?

Up today is Henry Hertzfeld, a scholar of economic, legal, and policy issues surrounding spaceflight and NASA at George Washington University in Washington D.C. Hertzfeld’s research has looked into the privatization of the Space Shuttle, the economic benefits of NASA’s research and development expenditures, and the socioeconomic impacts of earth observation technologies.

Wired: Will this launch be a big game changer for how spaceflight is done?

Henry Hertzfeld is a scholar of economic, legal, and policy issues surrounding spaceflight and NASA at George Washington University in Washington D.C

Hertzfeld: In certain ways yes, and in others ways, it won’t be as big a change as all the hype behind it. SpaceX is a private company but they could not succeed without significant government money and the promise of a fairly large supply contract.

The government and NASA have provided technical support and advisors. To do something like this, you need a partnership with government, no matter who you are.

Wired: How do you think this will this impact NASA?

Hertzfeld: It’s hard to say. NASA is a mission directed agency. They want to get to space to do something — deep exploration or research or new technologies. Price is not the only consideration, not even the major one if it’s a critical mission. That’s not a commercial model, pure and simple.

My own view is this is fine you have another competitor, but you still have to count on the old timers, the existing companies with long track records. You will still need the Lockheeds and Boeings of the world.

The government actually spent a lot of time in the 1990s consolidating this industry. It was duplicative and wasteful and the government encouraged mergers, which left us with two or three big companies. The government is now saying we need another competitor.

Wired: How much closer does this bring us to a future where manned spaceflight is cheap and quick?

Hertzfeld: If this stimulates other companies and the costs go down it could change things, but that’s a ways off. The price of getting to space is still expensive and we’re still using traditional chemical propulsion. Space is risky and other than telecommunication satellites, there’s very little of a market out there.

Some of these new companies say they can bring the cost of getting to space down significantly. They throw out numbers like $100 to $400 per pound, when now it’s $5,000 to $10,000 per pound. Even a 50 percent reduction will not take you to those numbers. We need new launch technologies and new ways to get there, but we’ve got a long way to go.

A mass market for space tourism hasn’t yet appeared. Some people have expressed interest but it’s not certain that is really going to stimulate lots and lots of flights. There have also been significant delays. In 2004, some companies were promising many flights, then again in 2008. Now its 2012 and we have yet to see anything. It’s much slower and more risky than expected.

Wired: What happens if it doesn’t work?

Hertzfeld: It depends on what kind of failure happens. If it’s the worst kind of accident, it will set them back tremendously. Space is risky and every launch vehicle, particularly new ones, doesn’t have a huge success rate. Even with commercial aircraft you’re lucky when you have a 95 percent success rate.

Let’s say there was a big accident and they were shut down for a year to figure out what went wrong. When Concorde [the supersonic passenger airliner] had that accident it was down for a year, and that was basically the end of it.

I feel that what SpaceX and the other commercial spaceflight companies are doing is interesting, and I hope they succeed. Not succeeding will not help the industry but there are many details that still need to be worked out.

Image: SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket blasts off from the launch pad during its second flight on Dec. 10, 2010. NASA/Kevin O’Connell

Here’s The Thing With Ad Blockers

We get it: Ads aren’t what you’re here for. But ads help us keep the lights on. So, add us to your ad blocker’s whitelist or pay $1 per week for an ad-free version of WIRED. Either way, you are supporting our journalism. We’d really appreciate it.